Also in my area it is common to see w-w, m-m couples, and even w-m couples dancing reversed roles. I often say that "we never confuse sex with gender". This elicits a smile, and makes the point that roles vary.
Rich
----- Reply message -----
From: "Perry Shafran" <pshaf(a)yahoo.com>
To: "Caller's discussion list" <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Subject: [Callers] gender
Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2013 11:12 am
There are several issues here. One is the terminology that is used to
differentiate the two dance roles and second, whether we will ever move
contra dancing to a completely gender-free system.
I think that
we all have to understand that everyone has their own comfort zone.
Some people do NOT want to dance with a same-gendered person no matter
how much you prod them, shame them, or even force them to do so. Some
are willing to try it from time to time, others enjoy it a lot, and others want to make all
contra dances completely gender free regardless of whether or not it
will chase some members from the community.
It is a strong
uphill battle to at least move from a heteronormative way of thinking.
Just recently it was suggested that the way to get someone to contra
dance (a man) was to tell him that a
new woman will be thrown into his arms every 30 seconds. Reason being
that most people are heterosexual and might be drawn to dance thinking
he's going to dance with women. I suggested that this was a bad idea
due to the fact that in most dances you'll see men dancing with men,
women dancing with women, and people switching roles.
I think
that the best compromise is to continue with the gents/ladies
terminology, but emphasize that these are merely titles of traditional
roles, but anyone can play them regardless of physical gender. That is
what I say in my workshops, and it's usually generally understood. Any
new terminology that you use will force people to translate which means
"man" and which means "woman". However, I do understand the baggage
that these gender-loaded terms do bring.
Perry
________________________________
From: JoLaine Jones-Pokorney <jolaine(a)gmail.com>
To: callers(a)sharedweight.net; callers-request(a)sharedweight.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 9:23 AM
Subject: [Callers] gender
In reply to Read who said "When gendered terms are used, people are more
likely to sort themselves by gender. Newcomers are unlikely to even
consider the possibility of not doing so."
I disagree. When I teach the introductory workshop I say, "You will see
women dancing the men's role and men dancing the women's role." They see
this happening immediately, even in the introductory workshop. In our
community, men dancing the women's role is less common, but it will happen
at least once at each dance so newcomers are seeing it.
We often get new women who want to dance the men's role so that they can
dance with their women friends that they came with. Of course this isn't a
great plan since they're all newbies, but my point is that they don't
hesitate to switch roles.
I find that the long-time contra dancers are often the ones who are less
willing. At a dance just a few days ago, I asked a woman to dance. Right
beside us were two men dancing together. She declared that it was silly
for two men to dance together when there were women available to dance
with. Another time I asked a woman to dance and she said she would if she
couldn't find a man to dance with. Another time I was lined up with my
woman partner when two men came running over and declared "We know you'd
rather dance with us!" and one of them grabbed my partner away and the
other one grabbed me. These are long time dancers who are operating under
the notion that a couple equals one man and one woman and anything else is
only to be tolerated if the ideal cannot be had.
So perhaps a non-gendered term would help the long-time dancers more than
the new dancers! I notice that in this conversation thread - no one has
actually proposed another option. I've thought it ought to be something
totally random like "blue" and "yellow" but a shift that drastic just
wouldn't happen I don't think.
I'm reminded of the time I was asked to call a gender-free dance where
where they were using "bands and bares." I spent a tremendous amount of
time practicing calling bands and bares and getting dances I felt
comfortable calling that way. IN the introductory workshop, I was passing
out bandanas for the bands and one man was asking his friend what I meant
by the "bands." She said to him - "She means the mens part." I thought
why did I just bother to learn bare and band when they're just thinking
women and men?
--
JoLaine Jones-Pokorney
"We are as gods and might as well get good at it!"
- Stewart Brand
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
I'm looking for recommendations of Sicilian circle dances that scratch
the contra itch, that is to say, dances that are pleasing to dance in
the same way that contras are. Joseph Pimentel's "Little Green Heron"
falls into that category for me. What Sicilians have you danced that
had that contra feel?
Kalia
Hmmm...Perry, as you probably already know, I agree with the principles you outline here. I'm 100% behind equality of opportunity in every possible context. In dancing, having the right and ability to decline any particular act is important. However, I feel like even the use of a term like "decline" suggests at most a temporary suspension of a lead/follow dynamic because it is a defensive/reactive thing, not an expression of leadership. Sort of like civil protest.
But please bear in mind, my present comments are intended to add to a discussion of how things seem to be now, not how we might wish to change/improve it in the future. Idealistically I'd love the concept of being led half of the time even if I danced as a gent exclusively (which is rare), just as I'd love being asked to dance half of the time. (Actually, the latter does happen to me every so often.)
Brian
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
In response to Perry's query about how "leading" comes into play:
I've always thought that the concept of lead/follow comes in by the very existence of the courtesy turn, as well as by the traditional closed position that is used for swinging in which it is far easier to direct the motion from the gent's role than the lady's. I speak from plenty of experience in both roles. Having your arms under your partner's so that your hand is on his/her mid back makes a huge difference. It means a superior ability to lead flourishes as well as to control speed and ending time/orientation of the swing. As a follow I usually find that I can support my own weight through my partner's shoulder but can do little else to direct the action.
Brian Hamshar
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
"For this dance, decide which one of you is going to be the lady and which one of you will be the gent. Put the lady on the right.
Don't worry, it's not permanent, I promise. In another dance I'm gonna call you "foxes" and "squirrels" -
they're just traditional calls that rhyme well - I promise no one will actually sprout a tail or any other bodily appendage."
or
"Decide who's going to be the lady & who's going to be the gent. Don't worry - I *know* none of you are really [gentlemen/ladies] - That implies good manners and decorum."
or
"Decide who's going to dance the role of Lady and who's going to pretend to be a Gent. Someone told me once I should use other non-gender-specific
words like "Aardvark" and "Duck", but I kept getting into trouble with the rhymes.... So now I stick with Lady and Gent. Much safer."
In reply to Read who said "When gendered terms are used, people are more
likely to sort themselves by gender. Newcomers are unlikely to even
consider the possibility of not doing so."
I disagree. When I teach the introductory workshop I say, "You will see
women dancing the men's role and men dancing the women's role." They see
this happening immediately, even in the introductory workshop. In our
community, men dancing the women's role is less common, but it will happen
at least once at each dance so newcomers are seeing it.
We often get new women who want to dance the men's role so that they can
dance with their women friends that they came with. Of course this isn't a
great plan since they're all newbies, but my point is that they don't
hesitate to switch roles.
I find that the long-time contra dancers are often the ones who are less
willing. At a dance just a few days ago, I asked a woman to dance. Right
beside us were two men dancing together. She declared that it was silly
for two men to dance together when there were women available to dance
with. Another time I asked a woman to dance and she said she would if she
couldn't find a man to dance with. Another time I was lined up with my
woman partner when two men came running over and declared "We know you'd
rather dance with us!" and one of them grabbed my partner away and the
other one grabbed me. These are long time dancers who are operating under
the notion that a couple equals one man and one woman and anything else is
only to be tolerated if the ideal cannot be had.
So perhaps a non-gendered term would help the long-time dancers more than
the new dancers! I notice that in this conversation thread - no one has
actually proposed another option. I've thought it ought to be something
totally random like "blue" and "yellow" but a shift that drastic just
wouldn't happen I don't think.
I'm reminded of the time I was asked to call a gender-free dance where
where they were using "bands and bares." I spent a tremendous amount of
time practicing calling bands and bares and getting dances I felt
comfortable calling that way. IN the introductory workshop, I was passing
out bandanas for the bands and one man was asking his friend what I meant
by the "bands." She said to him - "She means the mens part." I thought
why did I just bother to learn bare and band when they're just thinking
women and men?
--
JoLaine Jones-Pokorney
"We are as gods and might as well get good at it!"
- Stewart Brand
Chrissy hits the nail on the head of why there are numerous callers (her,
myself, Will Loving, to name a few) who vehemently oppose the inroads
"lead/follow" terminology is making within contradance. Thanks to mentors
who emphasized that "gent" and "lady" simply described dance roles,
distancing the terms from gender, i for the most part rely on "gent/lady".
However, as some within the contra meta-community become disenchanted with
gendered role-terminology systems, a viable alternative is needed. Given
the awkwardness of "bands/bare-arms" in some situations and (to more than a
few of us) the misleading nature of "lead/follow", we hope to energize the
collective Mind of the community to brainstorm new possibilities. As Will
mentioned in his initial post, there are four criteria he and i came up
with which we believe a new terminology system must meet in order to catch
on (i've modified them slightly) :
1. Matches the one/two syllable form of gents/ladies, lead/follow, etc.
2. Sound distinctly different for easy recognition (this nixes "b/b-a")
3. Accurately describe the experience and/or geometry of contra dance (eg,
referencing LHP/RHP; we submit that "l/f" does not accurately describe the
experience of contra)
4. Is gender and connotatively neutral without a lot of referential baggage
I can appreciate people's desire to defend their preferred systems, but the
point of starting this thread was to generate new possibilities.
>
>
> Donna Hunt said:
> I'm glad you said this was a "true story" otherwise I would have
> thought it was a "caller's nightmare". I'm wondering (as I'm sure
> everyone is) what else you had to "adapt" to and how you handled it
> all. If you have time I'd love more information.
>
Donna,
I know I recorded that dance. If I ever find it I'll send a copy to
you. It was easy to adapt because I was teaching dance and calling
full time. I was calling MWSD, calling to kids, mentally challenged
etc. So I was used to adapting all of the time. This situation was
just on the extreme side of adapting. The dancers were very gung-ho
and that made the experience very enjoyable. I can see that visiting
couple squares would have been a good choice but I really can't
remember what I did because it happened in 1988 or 1989.
When I called MWSD I soon learned that calling full throttle for
every tip wasn't real smart. For the dancers it got old. So I
developed these different voice personalities for variety. Sometimes
I'd be relaxed, or kid around or was challenging and yes full
throttle once in a while. I think this helped me more than anything
else when calling to the blues music.
Tom
>
>
>
>
Tom:
I'm glad you said this was a "true story" otherwise I would have thought it was a "caller's nightmare". I'm wondering (as I'm sure everyone is) what else you had to "adapt" to and how you handled it all. If you have time I'd love more information.
Happy New Year one and all!
Donna Hunt
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Hinds <twhinds(a)earthlink.net>
To: callers <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Sent: Sun, Dec 30, 2012 9:28 pm
Subject: [Callers] true story
Talent agent (who probably just had his coffee enema): TOM HINDS, ARE
YOU AVAILABLE TO CALL A SQUARE DANCE ON SUCH AND SUCH DATE?
Tom: Yes I'm free. What kind of........
Talent agent: GREAT! I'LL PUT YOU DOWN! click
So I get to the gig and discover that the band plays top 40 music.
The hundred or so dancers all wanted to dance and each square had
about a 5 foot by 5 foot space.
The band decided to play blues progressions. It was actually fun
because I had to really adapt.
T
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)sharedweight.net
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers
